Kolkata Court April 1933 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Pasupati Nath Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal841
C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.1. The facts involved in this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows: One Pasupathi Nath Mukerjee, a wealthy Hindu inhabitant of Calcutta, died on 9th May 1919 possessed of considerable movable and immovable properties and leaving a will executed by him on the said 9th May 1919. The Administrator-General of Bengal was appointed, executor under the will. He applied for Probate of the said will to this Court on its Original Side and a caveat was entered by the widow of the testator Srimutty Parijat Debi. The application for Probate was set down to be heard as a contentious cause and it was numbered as suit No. 13 of 1920. A period of nearly eight years was taken to obtain evidence on commission of various witnesses on both sides. The suit came on for hearing before Costello, J., some time in 1928 and after the hearing had gone on for 11 days, the parties beneficially interested in the testator's estate came to a settlement whereby the caveat was discharged and probate...
Debendranath Sharma Vs. Nagendranath Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal900
1. The plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen prayed for possession of the properties described in three different schedules of the plaint filed by them in Court on declaration of their title, as the reversionary heirs of one Jugalkishore Datta, of which the contesting defendants were in possession on the allegation that the defendants were in possession by virtue of sales which were inoperative and which did not in any way affect the rights of the plaintiffs as reversioners. The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree for mesne profits arising out of the properties of which the defendants were in unlawful possession. Without traversing the long history of devolution of interest as set out in the plaint, it is sufficient to state that the sales impeached by the plaintiffs in the suit were effected by Golakeshwari, a daughter of Jugalkishore Datta named above, who was admittedly the last male owner of the properties in question, and Kunjakishore, the son of Golakeshwari,...
In Re: Goods of Pasupati Nath Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1933
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.158
C.C. Ghose, C.J.1. The facts involved in this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows: One Pasupathi Nath Mukerjee, a wealthy Hindu inhabitant of Calcutta, died on May 9, 1919, possessed of considerable movable and immovable properties and leaving a will executed by him on the said May 9, 1919. The Administrator-General of Bengal was appointed executor under the will. He applied for probate of the said will to this Court on its Original Side and a caveat was entered by the widow of the testator Srimutti Parijat Debi. The application for Probate was set down to be heard as a contentious cause and it was numbered as suit No. 13 of 1920. A period of nearly eight years was taken to obtain evidence on commission of various witnesses on both sides. The suit came on for hearing before Costello, J., some time in 1928, and after the hearing had gone on for 11 days, the parties beneficially interested in the testator's estate came to a settlement whereby the caveat was discharged and probate of t...
Debendra Nath Basu Vs. Atmananda Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal797
Pearson, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover arrears of drainage cess for the years 1334 to 1337, and for damages. He is the proprietor of estate No. 376 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate and has to pay drainage cess to Government. The Record of Rights shows the drainage cess as recoverable by plaintiff from defendant.2. The defence is that defendant claims to hold the lands as nishkar lands appertaining to lakheraj No. 386-B and that defendant pays drainage cess direct to Government and not to the plaintiff. The Munsiff referred to the entry in the Record of Rights and said that the question was whether it had been rebutted. He went into the question whether on the evidence it was shown that the holding in suit belonged to lakheraj No. 386-B, and he finds that it does and that Government has the preferential right to the drainage cess. On appeal before the Subordinate Judge it was contended that no appeal lay under Section 153, Ben. Ten. Act, because no question had been decided relating...
Nagendra Nath Roy and ors. Vs. Haran Chandra Adhikary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal865
Mitter, J.1. The facts of the two appeals, Nos. 37 and 57 of 1933, are to some extent inter-connected with each other and it is necessary to state the facts of the two cases in the order in which they have been presented by the learned advocate for the appellant. It appears that there were two brothers of the name of Prasanna and Bhabani. Prasanna had also another name Gurucharan. He died leaving behind him a widow Sham Rangini and his brother Bhabani. During the lifetime of Sham, Rangini she executed a deed of relinquishment of her husband's estate in favour of Bhabani, the latter promising to giving a certain amount as maintenance to the lady during her lifetime. In 1917 Bbabani executed a promissory note for certain amount in favour of Sham Rangini who instituted a suit against Bhabani on the said note. During the pendency of that suit Bhabani died. Sham Rangini however obtained a decree against the sons of Bhabani who are four in number, namely Syamapada Roy, Nagendra Nath Roy, Bir...
Bhupendra Nath Roy Choudhury Vs. Jatindra Nath Ray Choudhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal788
Mitter, J.1. The only point which has been raised by this rule is as to whether a person who has purchased a property after it has been attached and before it has been sold is a person whose interest has been affected by the sale within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. The Munsif took the view that such a person has no locus standi to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90. The Subordinate Judge takes the contrary view. The question in this rule is which view is right.2. It appears that the petitioner brought a money suit against opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and on 20th September 1930 attached before judgment certain immovable properties belonging to them. The suit was decreed on 29th January 1931, and the attachment was made final on that date. On 29th October 1930, opposite party No. 2 executed a mortgage in respect of the property attached in favour of one Sarat Jamini Devi, and on 19th June 1931 opposite party No. 1 purchased the mortgage security from Sarat Jamini...
Neerendrabhooshan Lahiri Vs. Berhampur Oil Mills, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal914
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 from a decision of the Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge of 24-Parganas, by which the plaintiffs' suit was decreed against them on contest and ex parte against defendants 1 and 4. The suit was for recovery of money due as balance of the price of two waggon loads of mustard oil alleged to have been supplied by the plaintiffs, a joint stock company with limited liability, from their place of business at Berhampur (District Murshidabad) to a firm styled S.B. Lahiri and Company carrying on business at Maniktala (District 24-Parganas), of which latter firm the four defendants were said to bathe proprietors. The two grounds, on which the decree of the Court below is assailed, are firstly that the suit was instituted beyond time; and, secondly, that defendant 2 is not a partner of the firm, but that the firm belongs to defendant 3 alone. So far as the first ground is concerned, the relevant facts are the following: The two consignments w...
Satis Chandra Mukhopadhya and anr. Vs. Nuba Krishna Roy Chowdhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Cal704
ORDERPearson, J.1. In this case the opposite party instituted proceedings under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, consequent upon the final publication of the Record of Rights. That publication took place on 8th August 1931, according to which it appeared that the petitioner was liable to enhancement of rent. On 4th December 1931 an application was made by the landlord opposite party under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for enhancement. The petitioners as against that set up in those proceedings that they were not tenure holders liable to enhancement of rent but were raiyats with mokarari status. The written statement was filed on 9th April 1932, that is a considerable period after the lapse of four months which is provided for in Section 106, Ban. Ten. Act, under which the petitioners might have made a substantive application as against the entry in the Record of Rights had they been so advised. Now, on 6th June issues were settled. Issue 1 raised the question whether the petitioners were liab...
Saradakripa Lala Vs. Comilla Union Bank, Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal4
Jack, J.1. This rule has been directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Chittagong, rejecting an application of the petitioners made Under Order. 21, Rule 29, Civil P. C., on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to stay the execution of the decree Under Order 21, Rule 29.2. In this case a money decree was passed against the plaintiffs petitioners before us and that decree was transferred from the Comilla Court to the Court at Chitagong. In that Court, the plaintiffs filed a suit for setting aside the decree and for recording an adjustment and therefore applied to the Court for stay of execution of the decree, which had been transferred from the Comilla Court. The learned Subordinate Judge held that, under the terms of Order 21, Rule 29, he was not entitled to stay the execution, inasmuch as his Court was not the Court, which passed the decree. Under Rule 29, Order 21:Where a suit is pending in any Court against the holder of a decree of such Court, on the part...
Brajabala Dhar and ors. Vs. Nityamayee Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Cal17,150Ind.Cas.209
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Mymen-singh dated 25th May 1931, by which he granted what is described in the decree as letters of administration of a lost will. It appears that one Gopinath Biswas who was an aged and practising Muktear of Netrokona is said to have executed a will a short time before his death. The testator died on 26th September 1923. The will according to the case of the proponent was executed some time in October 1914. It was registered in the Local Registry Office as will appear from the paper which although not exhibited was filed along with other papers with the application for grant of letters of administration. That paper was one of the un-exhibited documents and has been printed in the last two pages of part II of the paper book. Unfortunately the Registration Office was burnt and we have not got a copy of the certified copy of the will. The case of the proponent is that the testator retired with his wife to Benares in Nov...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »